tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC June 14, 2012 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
thank you very much for joining us tonight. lisa ling's show "our america" airs on own. thank you for joining me. up next, "hardball" with chris matthews. mano y mano. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews. in washington let me start with today's big standoff. president barack obama and former governor mitt romney each making his case to lead the country the next four years. obama showed us a choice between his economic policies and romney's. he says his policies are based on tax fairness. and ka bigger commitment to energy, infrastructure. he wants people trained for jobs. he wants government to put people to work. he wants the financial big shots on wall street regulated in the interest of the people.
will just give us a rerun of what we got from w. tax cuts. romney's basic argument today is that he'll do what big business thinks ought to be done. let's hear from ed rendell of pennsylvania. author of a great book "a nation of wusses." and michael steele. both are msnbc analysts. we brought on the heavyweights today if you don't mind me saying so to address this question. president obama today clearly tried to turn this election -- this is the keyword -- into a choice. not a referendum on how the economy's doing. a choice between two candidates who will lead the country. a choice between his policies that pull us back from the brink and mitt romney and his allies in congress. let's listen. >> governor romney and the republicans who run congress believe if you simply take away regulations and cut taxes by trillions of dollars, the market will solve all of our problems
on its own. if you agree with that, you should vote for them. i believe we need to plan for better education and training and for energy independence and for new research and innovation, for rebuilding our infrastructure. and if you agree with me, if you believe this economy grows best when everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules, then i ask you to stay with me for a second term as president. >> well, here's the question. he doesn't want the american people to say how do you feel? how's the economy doing? they say what do you think of the two programs of the candidates? >> i think it's a smart strategy if the president could do it. he went real quick through what he inherited and what the economy looked like when he became president. the progress made. i think he did a good job in ohio of emphasizing the manufacturing comeback.
that's manufacturing growth since '95. and then he went to the future and compared his plan to romney's. i think in the end that's what the american people are going to care about. they're going to hear all the charges of the past. romney wasn't a good governor and all that stuff. they're going to be interested in what are the plans of the candidates to get us out of this. i think the president has a more viable plan, a plan that can jump start the economy more quickly, and a plan that has a chance to work. the romney plan, bill clinton said it's the bush tax cuts on steroids. and i think that's a very good -- if he can make the election about the contrast for the future, i think he's got a good shot. >> i guess the question is, michael, whether he can work with the argument. i started in a mess i was given in 2008. this guy wants to rewrite the same policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of the financial sector, all that stuff. >> right. >> my question to you and it's a
tough one. give me the profound differences between the presidential candidate mitt romney and former president george w. bush when it comes here. >> that is an irrelevant comparison -- >> but it's my question for you. >> i'm not asking you that. >> everyone knows why you won't answer it. >> you're doing exactly what obama wants us to do. you're a good sycophant for it. >> that's rough. what do you call a guy that refuses to answer a question? is he a sycophant for the other side. >> you gave the governor the time. let me have the time. >> i preceded his time with a question. i preceded your time with a question. my question is give me the differences between w and romney. >> you give me the difference between romney and obama. this is not about george bush. why are we talking about george bush? we're talking about barack obama and his policies that has kept unemployment stagnant.
that still has some 10 to 15 million people unemployed and stopped looking for work. the governor is right. the first part of his speech began to set the narrative. then the latter half or even 2/3 of it fell off into this defensive mode. >> okay. >> that's what the people were going to focus on. that this split decision is for running to the president of the united states. this is not about george bush. >> let me try again. if you bought a house and found out every time you plugged the toaster in and there was a short. and there was a fire because of the electrical system and everything was wrong with the house. wouldn't you blame the guy you bought the house from? >> well, yeah. and the person -- >> well, that's what we're doing here. >> excuse me. excuse me. >> we're blaming the guy we bought the house from. >> there's a new owner in the house. his name in barack obama. >> i have this monitor in this -- [ overlapping speakers ]
>> i want to ask the governor the same question. >> i think michael has a point. but i think you bring up president bush and actually the last 60 years of economic growth in this country. because the prescription that governor romney is putting forth before the american people is the same thing that president bush tried to do. it's not we're blaming president bush, it's just it's the same formula. the formula didn't work. it plunged us into a significant recession. if you look at the last 60 years, chris, the highest ten years in job growth was when the marginal tax rate on the rich were 50% or more. so there's no correlation between that and job growth. >> the reason we're bringing back w is because the sessions being made over and over and i understand why your candidate's doing that, romney is suggesting he's a fresh start. i would argue he's not a fresh start. he's a rerun. if you keep suggesting romney hasn't tried yet, we'll say yes.
but his plans have been tried. and you deny that's relevant. >> i think he is relevant. i think he will move it in a different direction starting with spending. the -- >> how is he a fresh start? >> the one thing i didn't hear from the president today was how he'll reduce spending. that is the crux of the nation's problem today. we are spending money we do not have. and i think romney has a legitimate prescription for addressing the spending side of this equation which a lot of people don't want to address. that's what this is about. >> what's romney going to cut? has he laid that out? >> there were no specifics from either candidate. >> i agree with that. >> you're right. let me give you michael's argument. his argument is this president who wants to be president, rather, is a republican with the -- right attitudes as the
president we just saw four years ago. he says he doesn't have toe say what the guy wants to do. and he doesn't have to say how he's different than w. >> no he doesn't. >> but we have to give the new guy a shot. >> so is barack obama going to tell us how he's different than bill clinton? >> no, i think he likes bill clinton. >> that's my point. if you're looking at these two administrations that are vastly different on how they approach spending. clinton and obama. >> two things, michael. two things. the president did say in his speech that he has a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the deficit. that was the big deal that he and boehner were trying to put together. >> okay. >> and he couldn't do it. boehner will admit the president had a $4 trillion deficit reduction on the table. that's number one. he reiterated that today. on the flip side of the coin, governor romney cuts all these taxes which blows a big hole in the deficit and hasn't shown what he's going to cut for that hole.
>> let's go back to the president. here's president obama today saying what romney is offering is nothing more than a republican retread of the failed policies of the -- see we have differences. >> it was tested just a few years ago. we tried this. their policies did not grow the economy. they did not grow the middle class. they did not reduce our debt. why would we think that they would work better this time? >> how do you think he did today, governor? >> i think he did a good job of framing everything. very effective. but he didn't say anything he didn't say in the jobs bill speech in october. same stuff. he did a better job of putting it in context and flow with it. >> i'm with you rather because you're out front on this. i think he has to have a major pitch -- i think michael will disagree with this. i think investment is the issue.
you've got to build. >> with what? >> well, we're behind everywhere in the world in terms of what we have as private sector development. we don't have the highways -- >> what are you building with? where's the money coming with? what are you building with? do you know how much it costs to build? >> -- the addition decisions businesses are not making. both of them are not spending. somebody has to or the economy will go completely stagnant. >> and it's true -- >> because this economy is too weak to grow. because the investor class will not invest in the policies that this president has put forth. it's that simple. >> michael, you have to look -- the last three republican presidents. reagan and the two president bushes. to get out of the recessions they dealt with, they both significantly increased government spending. all three of them. that's a fact. government spending went up and that helped us out -- >> and they also cut taxes. which is why we have deficits. >> and let the tell you.
president obama has said he's got a plan to take $4 trillion out of the deficit. if you take $4 trillion out of the deficit and invest half a trillion in -- >> i want to talk politics in a second. >> i talked to the financial experts today. a lot of clients are admitting they're not going to invest until this president's gone. they're holding back. you can argue whether that's punitive or smart business. if business refuses to invest. if the consumer has the confidence that comes with that and government pulls back, we will have an economy which has decided to have an unending recession. because the business not spending and government's not spending and the consumer's not spending, we are dying economically. that's what you want us to do. >> no, it's not. it's not. it's not what i want us to do nor does -- is it what
republicans want us to do. >> you just said so. you said businesses won't spend and government shouldn't spend. >> i'm not bragging. you said the ceos you've talked to are saying the same thing. it's not punitive. >> yes, it is. >> would you make a bad investment if you know it's a bad investment? no. you don't see -- can i just finish -- >> let me ask the governor. is businesses out there taking financial investments to help this president get re-elected? nobody's putting money on the table. >> michael, you'd agree warren buffett's a smart guy. he says it's a great time to invest and he's going to increase by a billion dollars that his company is investing. he's a pretty smart guy. >> guess what? because warren buffett's got the leverage to do that. a small business owner doesn't necessarily have that leverage. >> and president obama has cut taxes on small business owners 18 times. >> maybe he needs to cut 19 times because no one's feeling it. and the other point i think it's
important to make for all this coming out today about what he's going to do, he had the opportunity in his grasps to do and he blinked. >> i can't let that go. [ overlapping speakers ] >> michael, you can't do simpson bowles without -- >> yes you could. he could say this is my plan. and he didn't. >> michael, you know you can't unless the other side raises revenue. >> it's not what you can do at times it's what you're willing to do. >> okay, guys. we have an interesting set of words here. i'm a sycophant, the president speaks in blubber. thank you for that elevation of discussions. a bad day for your crowd, michael steele, i understand why you got overexcited today. >> it was a good day. >> well done. we'll never stop talking about it. thank you. coming up, dirty angry money he's given the romney campaign
$10 million. there's talk he might give $100 million. i guess the casino business is doing really good. what's he going to do with this money and white house he giving it? also gruesome testimony, more of it, at the sandusky trial. could the trial empower other victims of sexual abuse to come forward? and 40 years after watergate, two of the biggest figures in that case join us here live. carl bernstein one of the greatest investigating reporters that broke this story and john dean probably the most famous whistle blower in history. plus a new survey tells you you can tell what your politics are by the answers to those questions. this is "hardball" the place for politics. [ male announcer ] if a phone rings at your car insurance company
and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? [ meows ] or if a tree falls on your car and no one's around to answer your call, do you make a sound? the answer is probably "yes" [ growling ] and "like a howler monkey." unless you're calling esurance. they have live humans on the phones to help 24/7. so you might make different sounds, like happy human sounds. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call. we've got new poll numbers from a pair of battle ground
welcome back to "hardball." the 2012 election had a slogan that may turn out to be brought to you by adelson. he has given $35 million to republican superpacs and is likely to give a lot more. his latest donation is $10 million supporting romney rp. people close to adelson says it will take -- he's worth about $25 billion. adelson has a lot of money to give away. he knows it. last month, he met with adelson
for nearly an hour the question is, what does adelson expect to get? rick tower is the spokesman winning our future super pac. that was the main beneficiary of adelson's money in that go around. and the host of face to face on the nbc affiliate. it has amazing if you think about these together. this candidate for president effectively now, mitt romney genuflecting at the alter of donald trump. then you see him taking money in scads from this other fellow. what does it say in vegas that these guys who make money at the craps table are now running the
presidential election of the leading republican in the country? >> well, i do have to say i think it's unfair to compare him to donald trump. he's worth more than donald trump. he's a person of substance. now, what is that substance? he has a few things he really cares about. israel is one of them. he and newt gingrich got to know each other over that issue in the '90s. he is one of the few strip casino owners that has fought the unions. as you mentioned, he's got $25 billion. $100 million is not unreasonable. i don't think we'll see all that money, chris. he is quite enamored with karl rove. i bet karl rove has convinced him to give a lot of money to crossroads who does not have to disclose donors. >> so we already know how much? >> it could be $100 million. i will tell you. i love the stories that say people close to sheldon adelson. nobody knows what he's going to
do except for sheldon adelson. and trump, he does not like the attention. he really does not. i think that's one reason why -- he told me weeks ago he was going to give one more contribution to a super pac. he said it's a small amount of money, maybe not to you but to me. >> what a comment. one of our producers figured out for a guy of his wealth in the tens of millions is like giving away $30. it's just change to him. let me go to rick tower who knows how super pacs work. if they go to a big one, big game hunting i'd call it. what kind of conversations occur between candidate and giver? >> in the case of the super pac, not a lot of conversations, chris. in general, donors and candidates have to find common ground. i know with sheldon adelson who
is a deep believer, he stands on israel to protect israel. adelson, he grew up in massachusetts. started throwing newspapers at 12 years old. for 66 years has built up from nothing what he has. why shouldn't he be able to participate towards where he wants to? >> fair enough. it's legal. the supreme court said it's okay. it's legal. my question is this the type of democracy our people fight for. that people with a huge amount of money could put on television something they didn't know anything about and influence people by the millions just because they've got the pun. that's my question. does it bother you they have so much more votes? does it better you? >> no. it doesn't bother me you get on tv every night and influence everybody with your opinion.
>> i didn't pay to get on. people can agree with me or disagree. these ads are not arguments. they are relentless saturation advertising campaigns. >> that's correct. >> you cannot escape. >> you can escape them, you don't have to watch. >> any television show, you've got to turn off the television. you guys run bombing campaigns. you cannot escape. look what happened to your guy newt when that money was turned on against him by mitt romney. you had him crying out of the campaign. he was finished because that kind of money talks. you know it does. tell me it didn't run your candidate out of the race. didn't it? didn't it run your guy out of the race? >> it may have, but what's the alternative? i mean, i think the founders were correct in terms of shutting down political speech. this is political speech. now, i would say let's have the money go directly to the candidates and then we get rid of this third party shell game.
then i think people, the candidates can be more responsible with the money. >> okay. i may be right. i know i'm right. you know i'm right too. we'll have a conversation sometime off the air. you know i'm right. the power of money to destroy newt gingrich not that he didn't deserve it but he was destroyed by big money. what is the sense about adelson. it comes down to the question of power and cynicism. how can you get up and vote, you take a shower and put your clothes on and plan to vote. but all the time you know that the huge amount of money going into politics today is making us like the latin-american countries in the old days when there were five families that ran the place. are we going toward that? >> i think it's right to worry about it. but i'm not sure it's wrong in the sense i think the biggest problem is the transparency issue and the fact he's contributing so much more money than we know in other ways.
i would like it to be more transparent. if i could point out the ironies going on here. when mitt romney talks about the great threats to america besides a second term for barack obama he talks about two things. a nuclear iran and what? the economic might of china. he's worried about china. where has sheldon adelson gotten all his money? from china. i think that's just a great irony of this. because of what the court decisions say, you can't really stop sheldon adelson. we should realtime report. when he gives $10 million we should know. >> thank you john raulston. i never thought of myself the way that rick tower said i have influence on how people vote. i don't think it works that way. i think people make up their
mind. they argue with the television by the way. they don't just listen to it. thank you for coming on. please come back. >> thanks. up next, do you think there's a gaping hole between republicans and democrats in this country? it's not just politics but also tv sports, cars, even coffee choices. wait until you hear about the coffee telling what the party is. it's fascinating research coming up in the place for politics.
you don't know what it's like for me to be out here for you. it is an up at dawn pride-swallowing siege. god help me. help me, rod. help me help you. help me help you. help me help you. >> help me help you. one republican governor thinks he does a great mcguire. who? >> i'm coming today because i need your help. anybody watch jerry mcguire? see the movie jerry mcguire? remember that great scene in the locker room, he's talking to his only client he's got left and he looks at him and says help me help you. help me help you. help me help you. that's what i'm here to say today.
help me help you. >> that's a tough audience. looks like he rehearsed that a bit. new jersey has until the end of this month to reach a budget deal. christie has warned his cabinet to start prepping for a government shutdown. next, the white house was quite the love fest going with betty white. earlier this year, the president participated in her 90th birthday celebration with a video message and this week, we got a snapshot of her visit to the white house before her speech at the smithsonian. there's more. now, she's featured in a video for the president's summer jobs initiative. >> well, my first job was actually, i was doing a guest shot on a talk show on television. it was when television first started. we did a little interview and it taught me that whatever else i did for the rest of my life, i wanted to stay in that business. i'm 90 and i'm still in that business and loving it.
>> the actress says she very much favors president obama in the up coming election. i guess it couldn't hurt having her behind you. also, think your go-to coffee joint or your sport you prefer or the tv show you watch is just matter of your personal preference? a new poll by the firm biology says no. it may determine whether you're a democrat or republicans. starting with the morning cup joe. sport, nfl for democrats, major league baseball for republicans and when it's time for a new car, this is interesting. democrats would like to own a jeep. republicans would go for a bmw as their most desired. tv channels, democrats chose animal planet. republicans went for the history channel. wow. and one last nugget, hbo and show time were found to be two of the most polarizing brands with both favored by democrats.
up next, the prosecution is getting close to wrapping up its case against former football coach jerry sandusky at penn state who faces 50 charges of sexual abuse. lots more graphic information just came in today in that trial. will he take the stand in his own defense? that's ahead. you're watching "hardball" the place for politics.
welcome back to "hardball." the prosecution appears to be close to wrapping up its case in the trial of former penn state coach jerry sandusky today who's denied the 52 criminal counts he faces of sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period. one at his trial, a mixed media coverage, the importance of spreading light on the stories of sexual child abuse, unveiling not only the heinous details. but also the accounts coming forward telling the police. wendy murphy's a veteran sex crimes prosecutor and ian simpson is covering this case
for reuters. let's get the latest before you hear from wendy. ian, today in the trial, was it just more of this gore of this incredible use of prepubescent young boys for sexual enjoyment or whatever? >> well, today was the last prosecution witness and he gave graphic testimony about sexual abuse -- alleged sexual abuse at the hands of jerry sandusky mainly in the basement of sandusky's home over a three-year period. and that he had met sandusky through sandusky's charity, the second mile. but in the prosecution's cross-examination, he said that he admitted he had continued to go to football games with sandusky for years after he had actually broken off this relationship. >> let's go back to wendy on this question. you're used to these cases.
what kind of a defense is that that the kid was afraid to blow the whistle and continue the relationship. he may not have had the lead in. sometimes, kids do what they're told to do. your experience, wendy. thank you. >> yeah, i mean, not only that, chris, but sometimes, if you're a little kid and this happens and you don't have a context to understand how cruel and abusive it is when you're little, you can develop real affection for your abuser. lots of the victims in this case testified, i liked the guy. he was good to me. i had no father. this guy pegged the kids well. he picked kids he knew would keep quiet because he was grooming them. he was affectionate to them buying them stuff. for every once in a while he was sexually violent towards them and they stay quiet. that's very common. i don't think that's a defense. if anything, it sort of helps proves the prosecution's case because that's how victims are when they are young and being abused by someone they trust and admire. >> let me get back to ian.
the graphic details, it seems to get worse. worst horrors after worst horrors. without getting into details, these were rapes of every possible with these kids. it's hard to believe that the person would allow things to enter into their heads, this guy was doing it according to the testimony today. >> yes, that's the allegations of the accusers. and it's horrific crimes. alleged crimes. the thing that's important to remember is these cases are normally -- it's usually one small child or a small boy against the man. and in this case these are men, ages 18 to 28. there are eight of them. one after another hearing this in this courtroom in an often hushed courtroom, the cumulative effect is devastating.
>> they were all about 11 or 12 at the time of these incidents. these alleged incidents. what was sandusky's response when he watches this and hears it? >> well, he sits hunched forward for the most part at the defense table. his back is to the spectators. you can't really see his face, but he is focused on the witnesses. today he was -- kept his eyes on the last witness which had very graphic testimony. and at the end of the testimony today, the witness was asked to point him out in a courtroom. the witness turned his head away and said i don't want to look at him. >> the witness didn't want to point him out. >> he pointed him out, but he said i don't want to look at him. >> yeah. but he wasn't shaking his head in disagreement with the testimony, was he? was he doing anything like that to express any disagreement? >> no, he's -- no, he has never
done that. he has been hunched forward. sometimes chin on hand looking intently at the witnesses or the evidence. never expressing -- occasionally turning to his lawyers. >> wendy, thanks for coming on. i want you to take a moment here. make a point. the one thing about the graphic nature of this coverage is finally we know how horrible this behavior was. criminal behavior, felonious behavior. for years the press would write it in the most delicate way. when you write molested, i didn't know what that meant. i didn't know what those words mean. now i know exactly what this means. will it encourage boys, young girls who've been a victim of this to say yeah i know that happened and that happened to me. and now i'm going to tell somebody about it. now i know it's a crime. go ahead. >> yeah. and it also makes kids feel comfortable that they're not the only one. they often think they're the only one. millions of kids are sexually violated in this country every year.
only a handful come forward because most of them don't understand it or don't feel powerful to speak out. a crime like this especially with so many cameras on television, it could be good for us. not only the kids to come forward so we can protect them or so that jurors.net feel it's so horrific and disgusting they can't accept the reality of it. i've had a lot of trials where people said i almost voted not guilty. it's so disgusting so i figured it can't be true. we need to get comfortable with your discomfort. that's the only way we're going to protect kids. that means saying out loud oral rape, able rape. this is not sex. anybody who's covering this story who uses the word sex should be ashamed of themselves. this is never sex when it is a child. it is the language of violence that we should be using. needless eroticism in the story telling makes it harder for us
to understand how devastating and vicious this behavior is, chris. >> well said. thank you, wendy. wendy murphy is prosecutor who knows what she's talking about. ian simpson, thank you for the reporting today. up next, it's been 40 years since watergate. two join us tonight. carl bernstein will be with us along with white house council john dean. stay tuned. this is "hardball" the place for politics. [ male announcer ] if a phone rings at your car insurance company
and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? [ meows ] or if a tree falls on your car and no one's around to answer your call, do you make a sound? the answer is probably "yes" [ growling ] and "like a howler monkey." unless you're calling esurance. they have live humans on the phones to help 24/7. so you might make different sounds, like happy human sounds. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call.
global confidence in president obama has slipped since he fist took office. take a look at this. in traditional allies, europe and japan confidence in the president remains strong. although it has dropped a bit in russia. again it's down now. finally look at china. six in ten chinese had confidence in president obama back in 2009. now down to four in ten. i guess there's friction there. we'll be right back.
we're back. believe it or not, this sunday, the 17th of this month, is the 40th anniversary of the moment in american history, the break in at the washington, d.c. watergate complex. there it is in d.c. "the washington post" reporters broke the story with the help of their anonymous source deep throat. they covered the story and made it a major american event. they exposed it so well. carl bernstein is with us from new york and john dean's probably the most famous whistle blower in history. he was council to president nixon at that time. he provided the key testimony which was never really challenged ever. i don't know how you remember all this stuff. carl, thanks for coming on. first of all, we're going to start with john. here's a tape recording of you talking to president nixon or him talking to you discussing about the cancer on the presidency. when he was masterminding, if
you will, the cover-up. here he is talking about blackmail he's willing to pay to the burglars to keep them quiet. let's listen. >> what was, it was a long time ago, what was your reaction when you heard the president of the united states talk casually about the fund of -- he could just grab a million bucks out of a safe somewhere and have it, that is what is going in politics to some extent today. there's a huge amount of money rolling in. what did you think?
>> i gone in there to try to convince him otherwise, to warn him we were obstructing justice and that he would slam his fist down on the desk and stop it. i pulled out of thin air the fact that it could costa -- cost, a million dollars we know what he did after that conversation is go to the corner of the office where rose woods had a suite and open the door and you can still pick it up on the microphones and he asked rose how much money do they have in their slush fund. he knew where he could get the rest of it, but he did not have a million dollars. >> wow, carl bernstein, congratulations on this weird anniversary. it's something. you and bob woodward wrote this story. when you took out the five-part story of the wars against the
press, against the truth, against everyone. what does it mean today to you? what does it mean for the people watching the show right now? >> it's important to inside what watergate was, it was about from the beginning of the nixon presidency, richard nixon directed a massive campaign against all of his opponents, it was criminal, illegal, it was break-ins, we hear him talking about wanting to break in to the brookings institution so he can blackmail his predecessor, i want the safe cracked he said. i want a break in so he can blackmail his predecessor. this is the kind of criminality unique to the presidency of the united states, it marks nixon's presidency from the first time
he used the illegal means to undermine the anti-war movement. and then wire tapped the press, and then war against history and against the system of justice, the cover up. there's a line, the cover up is worse than the crime, not in this case. really, these crimes were enormous and it was why he was removed from office and now we have a better sense 40 years later with all the additional tapes and notes from the participants of just how brazen and corrupting of democracy this was and this president was. >> john dean, you were to inside and you were not corrupted in the end, you were able to break free, why did so many people, i'm not saying this is nazi behavior or anything, but why did so many people go along with him? i mean, liddi is a strange guy anyway, but why would they do what he told them to do?
>> it was done for the president. they believed the president had the power, today i don't. but he at that point did. when i heard for example about the brookings, i was the one that flew to california and told them they were insane and to call this thing off. as a result of that, i was never clued in on a lot of the other operations. bud and i have talked in the years since and he said, you know, if we had talked it through, we would have come out at the right place, the problem was never discussing it and the need to know basis of that white house. >> yeah. >> so, it was there were multiple reasons with multiple individuals. >> you are a good story teller. appreciate you. >> john dean has just used a really interesting word here. >> yes, quickly. >> it was insane, because it's a kind of insane criminality. and that is really what we hear when we listen to those tapes is
a kind of insane criminality and nixon's idea that if the president said it's legal, it's legal. >> he said that, didn't he. >> carl, thank you so much, we have it all on record thanks to the two of you. and thank you john dean, you are the world's most famous and important, i should say, important whistleblower. ill finish with the big -- i will finish with the big lesson we did not learn in politics.
let me finish tonight with this back wash of watergate. we thought, those of us who lived through this scandal that it was about something bigger. that money was the root of corruption. politics with unlimited trunks of hidden money. unreported and unknown except by a few. that could be used for anything they wanted to. we could get the money. that's what president nixon said during the watergate operation. to keep them from jumping ship and spilling the beans to prosecutors. they were asking for hush money. to use a term we all came to know so well. now four decades from the night of watergate, the break ins anniversary, we're surrounded by unlimited money in politics thanks -- we see ourselves in the same world of powerful people giving overpowering amounts of money to